CHUD.com Community › Forums › THE MAIN SEWER › Movie Miscellany › M. Night Shyamalan...no seriously
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

M. Night Shyamalan...no seriously - Page 2

post #51 of 105

IMDb's extremely brief description for the Will Smith sci-fi film (which they list as AFTER EARTH) is "After a crash landing, a father and son explore an alien planet." I can only assume that M. Night re-writing it to suit his style means the "alien planet" ends up being Earth, or the father and son are actually in a virtual reality simulation (or just the father, and the son is part of the simulation... DUN DUN DUUUUUUUN).

post #52 of 105

"You maniacs! You blew up the URF! Damn you!"

 

the%20fuck1.jpg

post #53 of 105

I think it's easy to forget that you're only as big as your last success. No matter how great your past success is, if you have a run of too many failures, you can find yourself on the outer very quickly and then the point comes where it's very hard to get a project made if not impossible.

 

Mind you, if you break through again after a slump, suddenly everyone wants to be your friend again.

post #54 of 105

Quote:

Originally Posted by Shan View Post
Mind you, if you break through again after a slump, suddenly everyone wants to be your friend again.


What a meta-twist!

 

I fell in love with Night's first 3 flicks. I liked THE VILLAGE, I even had a director-subsection in my dvd collection for his work. It's gonna take a huge return to form to gain my trust back.

 

And yeah, I agree with RD. I see Nolan as a Mann/Kubrick type or possibly the new Ridley Scott (and not a Spielbergling like Abrams).

post #55 of 105
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Shan View Post

I think it's easy to forget that you're only as big as your last success. No matter how great your past success is, if you have a run of too many failures, you can find yourself on the outer very quickly and then the point comes where it's very hard to get a project made if not impossible.

 

Mind you, if you break through again after a slump, suddenly everyone wants to be your friend again.


Well Night's only had one bomb, and that was Lady.  All his others films have either been box office triumphs, or at least sizeable hits.  Critics mean nothing in genre filmmaking, so Night's career was never really in trouble.  All the studios care about is money.  I just think since he hasn't had a mega success like Sixth Sense or Signs in a while, the studios are keeping a tighter leash on him.

post #56 of 105

THE HAPPENING and AIRBENDER were really sizable hits? I'm sincerely asking, but am shocked if that's the case. His name is met with laughter when it appears in a trailer at the theater these days.

post #57 of 105
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ambler View Post


Well Night's only had one bomb, and that was Lady.  All his others films have either been box office triumphs, or at least sizeable hits.  Critics mean nothing in genre filmmaking, so Night's career was never really in trouble.  All the studios care about is money.  I just think since he hasn't had a mega success like Sixth Sense or Signs in a while, the studios are keeping a tighter leash on him.


 

Underperformers can be seen as failures I suppose, for some less lucky people, one failure can be enough (though I guess they usually have less of a successful record). What was the final word on Avatar: The Last Airbender? I know it made a fairly decent amount but it was also very expensive.

post #58 of 105
  • His name must carry some kind of weight. Although they subsequently dropped like rocks, The Happening and The Last Airbender opened to 30 M and 40 M, respectively.
post #59 of 105
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dan Benenson View Post

THE HAPPENING and AIRBENDER were really sizable hits? I'm sincerely asking, but am shocked if that's the case. His name is met with laughter when it appears in a trailer at the theater these days.


The Happening made $163 million on a $43 million budget.  Not a huge hit, but a success.  Airbender made $319 million on a $150 million budget.  Again, nothing memorable, but still a hit.  Some of the worst filmmakers are doing fine at the box office.  You don't need a Sixth Sense size hit every time out, Hollywood is aware of that being a silly expectation to have....they have target numbers they'd like and I'm sure Night is hitting them, or close to them.  Don't forget dvd and bluray sales, as well as TV rights often at least double the box office number.  And like I said, genre films are immune to professional critics.  He's not going anywhere, no matter how many parody videos of him show up on youtube.

 

post #60 of 105

I'm not saying he has zero cache left but it must be a case of steadily diminishing returns. Seems like it might have been around AIRBENDER when things actually started to get toxic (when it comes to the public), and it was DEVIL (a film he didn't actually even direct) where his name was actually getting laughed/groaned off the screen. That was the point where I started to wonder if having him attached was doing more harm than good, though I'd have to look at how that one did.  Maybe his next release will be the most telling one way or the other.

post #61 of 105
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dan Benenson View Post

 

I'm not saying he has zero cache left but it must be a case of steadily diminishing returns.

 

I'm not comparing Night to Spielberg here, but if you look at the beard's track record, after his triumphs in the late 70s/early 80s, his box office steadily declined as well, with occasional bumps from his breadwinner, Indy and then Jurassic Park.  He'd generated enough goodwill with his earlier films to keep doing what he wanted for the most part.  And Night's career is fairly young compared to the beards.  Hollywood is a paranoid industry.  Night isn't bombing, and I'm sure no one wants to miss out on the next possible Sixth Sense from the man, no matter how unrealistic you believe it to be that he'll do another one of those.

 

post #62 of 105

Isn't there a certain point though where his name is such a joke that the studio would see it as a liability on a big budget project? That they'd be worried that he'd become the story?

post #63 of 105
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Princess Kate View Post

Isn't there a certain point though where his name is such a joke that the studio would see it as a liability on a big budget project? That they'd be worried that he'd become the story?


Not if his name isn't put on trailers and such.  Nobody cares about the filmmaker unless they're told to care.

 

post #64 of 105


 

Quote:
Originally Posted by Ambler View Post




Not if his name isn't put on trailers and such.  Nobody cares about the filmmaker unless they're told to care.

 



 

Fair point but I feel like that would be a big dose of humble pie for Night to swallow... He seems very focused on creating a 'brand' for himself. Up till now, his name has been all over everything he's done, even a big budget wanna be franchise tent pole film like the AVATAR adaptation

 

Is this a man who has it in him to blend into the background?

post #65 of 105

Okay, so his initial success was no fluke, his movies have continued to do reasonably well, critical opinion doesn't matter, and he isn't going anywhere... so what's this thread about again? If the business side is fine and the artistic side doesn't really matter, there's no question to answer here. Sounds like nothing "happened" to him other than one box office failure.

post #66 of 105


 

Quote:
Originally Posted by Dan Benenson View Post

Okay, so his initial success was no fluke, his movies have continued to do reasonably well, critical opinion doesn't matter, and he isn't going anywhere... so what's this thread about again? If the business side is fine and the artistic side doesn't really matter, there's no question to answer here. Sounds like nothing "happened" to him other than one box office failure.



 

We all know that isn't true though. As far as Hollywood is concerned, sure, maybe he's sitting pretty, but on CHUD, a website full of film fans, I think to us it should be clear that his films have seen a disasterous drop in quality that is hard to wrap your head around when you consider his  remarkably assured work on his debut film

post #67 of 105
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dan Benenson View Post

Okay, so his initial success was no fluke, his movies have continued to do reasonably well, critical opinion doesn't matter, and he isn't going anywhere... so what's this thread about again? If the business side is fine and the artistic side doesn't really matter, there's no question to answer here. Sounds like nothing "happened" to him other than one box office failure.


I said professional critics don't matter.  Not criticism period.  I already went over this in my first post.  Trying to get to the bottom of what happened to his talent.  We've had some good responses.

 

post #68 of 105
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Princess Kate View Post

Fair point but I feel like that would be a big dose of humble pie for Night to swallow... He seems very focused on creating a 'brand' for himself. Up till now, his name has been all over everything he's done, even a big budget wanna be franchise tent pole film like the AVATAR adaptation

 

Is this a man who has it in him to blend into the background?

 

Anybody can blend into the background if the studio demands it.   Night has a big ego, but he's not stupid.

 

post #69 of 105
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Princess Kate View Post

We all know that isn't true though. As far as Hollywood is concerned, sure, maybe he's sitting pretty, but on CHUD, a website full of film fans, I think to us it should be clear that his films have seen a disasterous drop in quality that is hard to wrap your head around when you consider his  remarkably assured work on his debut film

 

Yes, that's exactly what I'm asking here.
 

 

post #70 of 105

Fair enough. Then I'd also add that in addition to the massive success of THE SIXTH SENSE probably being overwhelming and going to his head, it maybe also drove him to keep doing the same type of movie, which, even when there isn't really a twist, could be described as "90 minute TWILIGHT ZONE episode." As awful as AIRBENDER apparently is, at least maybe it was a step in the right direction in that regard. I'd like to see him keep trying to push outside of his narrative and even stylistic comfort zone a little, though from the sound of it he still doesn't have much reason to do so. Maybe he won't hit bottom, but just keep plugging away at the level he is now.

post #71 of 105


 

Quote:
Originally Posted by Ambler View Post



 

Yes, that's exactly what I'm asking here.
 

 



 

I know I was explaining the point of the discussion to Dan. This is a great thread and it's an interesting question you ask. I say ego is to blame, but it is so strange as to still be a bit mysterious 

post #72 of 105

Guys, I got the point of the discussion. Just seemed like everything that could be said already had been.

post #73 of 105
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dan Benenson View Post

Fair enough. Then I'd also add that in addition to the massive success of THE SIXTH SENSE probably being overwhelming and going to his head, it maybe also drove him to keep doing the same type of movie, which, even when there isn't really a twist, could be described as "90 minute TWILIGHT ZONE episode." As awful as AIRBENDER apparently is, at least maybe it was a step in the right direction in that regard. I'd like to see him keep trying to push outside of his narrative and even stylistic comfort zone a little, though from the sound of it he still doesn't have much reason to do so. Maybe he won't hit bottom, but just keep plugging away at the level he is now.


Well all his films before Airbender were fairly low key; budgets under a $100 million...that was a very safe place for him to be, because of the low risk and potentially big return, which was true until Lady.  I think expanding into big budget stuff is a huge mistake because there's less of a safety net and he's already shown he can't handle it with Airbender.  I don't see him making Michael Bay like box office hits...his style is much too classical and low key.  I think he did Airbender because he felt his smaller stuff wasn't working...but he fucked up by writing the script.  If he's going to play in that sandbox, he cannot be writing it by himself...this next one seems to be a step in the right direction as far as that is concerned, so we will see how he handles it.

post #74 of 105


 

Quote:
Originally Posted by Dan Benenson View Post

Fair enough. Then I'd also add that in addition to the massive success of THE SIXTH SENSE probably being overwhelming and going to his head, it maybe also drove him to keep doing the same type of movie, which, even when there isn't really a twist, could be described as "90 minute TWILIGHT ZONE episode." As awful as AIRBENDER apparently is, at least maybe it was a step in the right direction in that regard. I'd like to see him keep trying to push outside of his narrative and even stylistic comfort zone a little, though from the sound of it he still doesn't have much reason to do so. Maybe he won't hit bottom, but just keep plugging away at the level he is now.



 

The way I see it, the problem with that film is its so horrendously terrible, that you kind of start to think he might have become an utter incompetent. I was hoping he could branch out too, but then all of a sudden it's like he can no longer master even the rudimentary elements of filmmaking

 

It is mind boggling bad, in terms of how the characters and actors are handled, that you begin to wonder if there is anything he *can* do right in a movie now

post #75 of 105

Oops wrong thread sorry

post #76 of 105

I like the idea that Night, as a writer, had a few ideas he had worked on for years and ran out fast, leading to a staggering drop in quality.

 

But what about the notion that once someone makes the sort of money Night has made, they lose interest (or ability) in saying anything of importance? 

 

And thanks for that information, Ambler. I forgot he had his family finance his first film. I'm somehow disappointed he was never truly an outsider in the industry. I think graduating from NYU and coming from a well-connected background disqualifies you. 

 

This post makes me sound socialist. 

post #77 of 105

To be clear, I'm not necessarily saying he needs to do bigger budget summer movie fare, just something different, and that's what AIRBENDER was in theory. Turns out it wasn't the right something though. You're probably right, low-mid budget might be better for him. On top of not writing his own movies, maybe he should try his hand at something without horror/sci-fi/fantasy overtones. Just do a straight drama. And/or something less serious/earnest.

post #78 of 105

 

Quote:
Originally Posted by BlackyShimSham View Post

But what about the notion that once someone makes the sort of money Night has made, they lose interest (or ability) in saying anything of importance?



I don't know, sounds like it could be a pretty big generalization. And how are we defining saying something of importance? I'm not sure M. Night ever did. Is THE SIXTH SENSE saying anything "important"? That's not necessarily a bad thing, though again it sort of depends what we mean by important.

 

I'd also submit that several of his films since then do seem to be trying to make serious points about stuff, so I certainly wouldn't say he's lost the interest. If anything I'd say that's one of his problems, and I'd be curious to see him attempt something more fun.

 

post #79 of 105
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by BlackyShimSham View Post

I like the idea that Night, as a writer, had a few ideas he had worked on for years and ran out fast, leading to a staggering drop in quality.

 

But what about the notion that once someone makes the sort of money Night has made, they lose interest (or ability) in saying anything of importance? 

 

And thanks for that information, Ambler. I forgot he had his family finance his first film. I'm somehow disappointed he was never truly an outsider in the industry. I think graduating from NYU and coming from a well-connected background disqualifies you. 

 

This post makes me sound socialist. 


No, I actually agree.  Big filmmakers like to rewrite history to suit their needs (ahem, Stallone), or make it seem like it was some miracle they actually made it.  Sure, it's hard, but some people have much more of a leg up than others.

 

post #80 of 105

Oh God, The Man Who Heard Voices. That's such a great unintentional study of egotism, for both the author (who is clearly in awe of Shyamalan despite all evidence to the contrary) and the filmmaker.

 

I love the scene where he meets with top Disney exec Nina Jacobson about Lady in the Water, and she expresses concern that the script is too hard to understand. His response is complete heartbreak, whereas almost any other writer will tell you, "Yes, executives are frequently dumb, but sometimes they have good instincts."

 

I'm still kind of pissed at him for The Last Airbender. Such a great cartoon, and such a boring-ass, ugly movie. Ah, well, I have the new Legend of Korra series to look forward to.

post #81 of 105
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Chris Spider View Post

Oh God, The Man Who Heard Voices. That's such a great unintentional study of egotism, for both the author (who is clearly in awe of Shyamalan despite all evidence to the contrary) and the filmmaker.

 

To be fair, the book was written before Lady came out and Night's downfall.  At that point, he was still pretty good as a filmmaker.

 

post #82 of 105

I'm looking at Night as a Wes Craven to the max. Came out with some really well received genre flicks with some original ideas and masterful execution, started to repeat himself, then attach his name to inferior product directed by others (see: Wes Craven PRESENTS!). Craven never had that extreme BO pull or hubris-choked public persona, but I'm noticing some patterns.

 

 

And M Night's name will be profitable for as long as marketing simply says from the director of SIXTH SENSE and SIGNS. The mainstream audience won't remember his entire resume, but they remember huge hits they're fond of.

post #83 of 105
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Chris Spider View Post

 

I love the scene where he meets with top Disney exec Nina Jacobson about Lady in the Water, and she expresses concern that the script is too hard to understand. His response is complete heartbreak, whereas almost any other writer will tell you, "Yes, executives are frequently dumb, but sometimes they have good instincts."

 

You can see the seeds of his demise sown in that Disney dinner disaster.  It's a great cautionary tale for upcoming filmmakers.

 

post #84 of 105
Quote:
Originally Posted by BlackyShimSham View Post

But what about the notion that once someone makes the sort of money Night has made, they lose interest (or ability) in saying anything of importance? 


Well, Spielberg eventually made Schindler's List, Saving Private Ryan and Munich so I don't know that making shit loads of money makes you lose that.

 

post #85 of 105

What was his response to the Exec?

 

 

post #86 of 105
Quote:
Originally Posted by Nardo View Post

What was his response to the Exec?

 

 

 

 

Quote:

Night, who thrived on tension, chose a date: The three key Disney executives would get the script on Sunday, February 13. Paula, Night's assistant, would fly from Philadelphia to Los Angeles that morning with copies of the script and hand-deliver them to the homes of Dick Cook, the chairman of the Walt Disney Motion Picture Group; Oren Aviv, the head of marketing (Disney did not make movies that it didn't know how to sell); and most significantly, Nina Jacobson, the Disney president. Nina's tastes largely dictated what kinds of movies Disney made. Later that evening, on an itinerary established weeks earlier, Paula would collect Cook's script, then Aviv's the next morning. Night wanted to know where they were at all times. Nobody kept Night's scripts for very long.

 

Except for Nina. Because she had worked with Night from what Disney saw as the start — The Sixth Sense — Night granted her one special dispensation. She could keep the script. Night trusted her.

...

There was another advantage to having Paula hand-deliver the new script on a Sunday. It promised his script immediate and undivided attention on a day of the week when phones rang less, when time slowed down, when people were closer to their emotions. He was comfortable getting in the middle of people's weekends. He felt that the reading of his script should not be considered work. It should add to the weekend's pleasure.

Nina read the sixth draft of Lady in the Water that night, after her kids had gone to sleep and the house was quiet. On four previous occasions she had sat down to read original M. Night Shyamalan scripts, and all four times the scripts had been well-crafted, unique, and interesting. The scripts didn't have any big plot holes. He always worked them over hard before sending them out. They typically contained little direction, or notes for the director — for himself — about how the scenes should be shot. There wasn't much exposition. The story was told through the dialogue, in what was said, and often in what was not said. Reading Night's scripts was like reading a play. She knew Lady in the Water, whatever it was, wouldn't be a mess.

There was an early, funny scene in Spanish, the fastest-growing language in America. Nina was fine with that. The protagonist, Cleveland Heep, had a stutter. She made a note of it — two hours of stuttering could make an audience insane. The beautiful wet pool creature, the role slated for Bryce Dallas Howard, showed up on page 15. Bryce was not a star, nobody would come to a movie because she was playing the female lead, but she was pretty, talented, inexpensive, and Night had loved working with her on The Village. There was a character named Reggie who worked out only the top half of his body, and Nina found him amusing.

And then she started to have problems. She wasn't yet on page 20 of a 136-page script.

There was a scary-looking creature, sort of a mutation between a dog and a hyena, with sharp wet teeth and spiky grass for fur.

And Night wants this to be a Disney-branded movie? Too scary.

There was a fivesome of smokers, and even though they smoked only cigarettes, it was clear they'd logged a lot of hours, if not years, with their mouths on bongs.

Not Disney.

The film critic in the movie, Mr. Farber, was attacked.

Not smart.

Then there was the role Night wanted to play himself, Vick Ran, a stymied writer with a cloudy future, living with his sister and carrying the movie's message. It was an enormous supporting role, the second-biggest male role in the movie, and Night had never had a role nearly this big.

Should the audience see that much of Night?

Then there was the enormous Korean party girl, Lin Lao Choi, who explained the mythic tale that was the backbone of the entire script. She did her explaining not through action, the holy grail of modern moviemaking, but with words.

Way too much exposition.

With Lin Lao and her invented language came Nina's biggest problem with the script. She didn't understand the myth.

Nina read it once and then read it again. She picked up a phone and called her boss.

''I don't get it,'' she said.

''Neither do I,'' Dick Cook said.

The next day — Valentine's Day — one of Shyamalan's agents, Jeremy Zimmer of United Talent Agency, drove to the writer-director's farmhouse outside of Philadelphia to give him Disney's uncertain reaction. The following evening, the three Disney executives flew East to have dinner with Shyamalan and Zimmer at the Rittenhouse Hotel's restaurant Lacroix.
 
...

 

From the start, the dinner was a disaster. The tables were too close together; Night felt that other diners could hear their conversation. The service was slow. There were many courses with tiny portions. Night was not touching his food. The waiters hovered excessively.

Nina and Night did most of the talking. They were sitting next to each other, with Zimmer on Night's left. Usually, Night found Nina's screechy voice amusing, but this night it was only grating. She sounded like the adults in the Charlie Brown TV movies: wha-wha-wha-wha-wha. Her problems with the script came spewing out of her without a filter. The boundary between candor and anger, Night couldn't identify it.

You said it was funny; I didn't laugh... You're going to let a critic get attacked? They'll kill you for that... Your part's too big; you'll get killed again... You've got a writer who wants to change the world but doesn't, but somebody reads the writer and does? Don't get it... What's with the names? Scrunt? Narf? Tartutic? Not working... What's with all these rules? Don't get it... Lin Lao Choi — and good luck finding a six-foot Korean girl — is going to explain all these rules and all these words? Not buying it. Not getting it. Not working.

She went on and on.... Night was waiting for her to say she didn't like the font Paula had printed it in.

The attack left Night feeling euphoric. He felt like a boxer, adrenaline coursing through him after getting hit. He came out flailing. He started with a broad attack, then planned to go into a line-by-line defense and conclude with soaring praise for his own work. He didn't want to have to do it, but who else would? He went right into Johnnie Cochran mode, which suited him. He did an excellent and funny, ''if the glove don't fit, you must acquit'' bit.

He was just about to shift gears when he looked at them carefully, one by one. He saw nothing. They weren't engaging him the way an opponent is supposed to. There was no boxing match going on. They were looking at him like he was on another team.

And as Night looked at them, he realized this wasn't a dinner meeting. It was an intervention, as if they were meeting with an alcoholic who needed to get into a treatment program. Their purpose was to talk some sense into him. Get on the team, buddy — we can all make lots of money!

Night felt sorry for them. They felt emboldened by The Village, by their belief that had Night only listened to them, that movie could have earned double or triple or quadruple the money it made.

''What are you saying, Nina? What are you saying the script needs? Three weeks? Three months?''

Nina said nothing. Her face said, Not three weeks, not three months, not ever.

''You're saying I've lost my mind.''

''No, we're not.''

''Yes, yes, you are.''

Night went into a long monologue of everything he had written as an adult, as a writer-for-hire, as a ghostwriter, as the writer of four original screenplays for Disney. He cited dollar figures, how the movies had ranked for their studios. When he got to the four Disney movies he had made, it was pow! whack! zoom! bop! The Sixth Sense, Unbreakable, Signs, The Village.

''Two of the four I made for Disney are among the largest-grossing movies of all time. But now — now I've written Lady in the Water, and I've lost my mind. Suddenly, I can't write anymore. I've lost my touch, gone crazy.''

Nina said, ''You know we had our problems with The Village.''

That was true. But Night had always thought they let him do his thing, as a writer and a director, because he had earned the right to do so. Now he was hearing something different. He was hearing: We didn't put our foot down last time, and we regret it; we're not going to make that mistake again.

He had known these people for years. He had always liked them; he had always thought they were smart. He knew they were good people. But a different kind of group thinking had taken hold of them. All of a sudden they looked like strangers.

It seemed to Night that they didn't know how they wanted the meeting to end. He couldn't understand why they didn't come in and say, ''Help us understand this movie.'' Had that been the first thing said at dinner, the whole night would have played differently.

He dug deep and said something he didn't know he still had in him: ''I'm going to have to decide whether I make this movie at all, or whether I make it elsewhere.''

Nobody responded.

Finally, Zimmer said to the Disney trio, ''We're thankful for the truthful response you've given us.''

Night didn't look at Zimmer. ''I don't agree with that. I didn't think it was a truthful response.'' He felt Nina had been preconditioned not to like the script, that she hadn't given it a truthful reading. He had put his heart into that script, he had put his soul and his dreams and his faith into it. It had more of a big idea — more of him — than anything he had ever written. It deserved more than we don't get it.

''There's a certain amount of space you have to give an artist, and the problem here is that you haven't given me that space. I don't have any room to move. You like the side of me that does conventional things that make money, and you don't like the side that does unconventional things.''

Everything was out now, including Night's unhappiness. The dinner came to a quiet close. Night tossed his spotless napkin on the table. The check came and Zimmer paid. The fivesome headed to the elevator.

''You three go down,'' Cook said. ''I want to talk to Night for a minute.''

Soon they were alone outside the elevator.

Cook told Night he could still make the movie at Disney, even if the executives didn't understand it. He said, ''Prove us wrong, Night. Just make the movie for us. We'll give you $60 million and say, 'Do what you want with it.' We won't touch it. We'll see you at the premiere.''

''I can't do that,'' Night answered. Spend a year of his life trying to prove them wrong? No. What a waste of energy. Their lack of faith in Lady in the Water would infect the whole project.

''C'mon.''

''I want to thank you for six great years and four great movies,'' Night said.

An elevator came, and they rode down together in silence. There were no hugs and there were no Hollywood loveyas. The three Disney people walked together past the doorman and out of the hotel and into a waiting car. As they left, Night was crying. He was crying because he liked them as people and he knew he would not see them again, not as his partners. He was crying because he was scared, because there was a big part of him that did want to simply get along with everybody, to do something safe, to be successful. He was crying because he knew they could be right. He was crying because in rejecting that script, they were rejecting him.

 

 

 

http://www.ew.com/ew/article/0,,1210892,00.html

post #87 of 105
Quote:
Originally Posted by User_32 View Post

 

 

 

 

 

 

http://www.ew.com/ew/article/0,,1210892,00.html


Thanks for posting this, it was a good read on a slow Saturday. You get a rep!

 

I feel like my avoidance of this film has been a sound decision, going by what I just read

post #88 of 105

Christ, what a whiner. "Waaah, she doesn't understand my script, she must have been PREDISPOSED not to like it!"

post #89 of 105
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Chris Spider View Post

Christ, what a whiner. "Waaah, she doesn't understand my script, she must have been PREDISPOSED not to like it!"



I suggest you read the book...it's like watching a train wreck in slow motion.

post #90 of 105

I cant take anything Shyamalan does seriously anymore. He's made a joke out of himself.

post #91 of 105
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ambler View Post



I suggest you read the book...it's like watching a train wreck in slow motion.


Yeah, I read it a while back, but that was the scene that stuck out the most. Clearly, a reread is necessary for my amusement.

 

post #92 of 105

I don't know what was worse, the Ego of M Night, or the fawning of the author of "The Man Who heard Voices". He (the author) gives off that vibe I get from a lot of Hollywood hangers-on: ass kissing to a "Big Shot" 's face, and shit talking about them behind their back, and mixing the two modes up. I mean, he really damages Night in this book, but he does so in a way that suggests he's behind Night 100%. But he's not.

 

Slow motion train wreck indeed!

post #93 of 105

 

Quote:
Originally Posted by Dan Benenson View Post

I'm not saying he has zero cache left but it must be a case of steadily diminishing returns. Seems like it might have been around AIRBENDER when things actually started to get toxic (when it comes to the public), and it was DEVIL (a film he didn't actually even direct) where his name was actually getting laughed/groaned off the screen. That was the point where I started to wonder if having him attached was doing more harm than good, though I'd have to look at how that one did.  Maybe his next release will be the most telling one way or the other.


From looking at Box Office Mojo, the movie made 33 million domestically and 29 million internationally; I had to go to IMDb to see that allegedly the budget was only 10 million bucks. So I imagine that wasn't considered to be a bad take.

 

Now, here's something that I remember REALLY pissed off people at the time: the 2004 mockumentary The Buried Secret of M. Night Shyamalan. It was on the then Sci-Fi Channel and I believe it was either 2 or 3 hours (!) long and it was a bunch of made-up bullshit that somehow was "guerrilla marketing" to promote The Village. I remember that people generally figured out it was crap even before it was shown and after the fact it was admitted it was a hoax. I imagine there was a decent amount of people (at least amongst the type of people who would frequent sites like this) who were turned off by the mockumentary.

post #94 of 105
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dan Benenson View Post

I'm not saying he has zero cache left but it must be a case of steadily diminishing returns. Seems like it might have been around AIRBENDER when things actually started to get toxic (when it comes to the public), and it was DEVIL (a film he didn't actually even direct) where his name was actually getting laughed/groaned off the screen. That was the point where I started to wonder if having him attached was doing more harm than good, though I'd have to look at how that one did.  Maybe his next release will be the most telling one way or the other.


I heard the same story about the reaction to his name on the trailer. I went and saw it at the cinema and it was all right, I guess. I thought the trailer rather unfortunately gave away who the Prince of Darkness was disguised as though. It did very nicely financially though. I heard that M. Night Shyamalan had planned it as part of an anthology series. Not connected stories but more of a Twilight Zone or The Outer Limits I guess.

 

post #95 of 105


Cheers, thanks.

 

"It was an intervention"

 

Exactly!  So the suits aren't a bunch of dipshits after all...WHAT A TWIST!!!

Quote:
Originally Posted by User_32 View Post

 

 

 

 

 

 

http://www.ew.com/ew/article/0,,1210892,00.html



 

post #96 of 105
Quote:
Originally Posted by Nardo View Post


Cheers, thanks.

 

"It was an intervention"

 

Exactly!  So the suits aren't a bunch of dipshits after all...WHAT A TWIST!!!



 


I just read the Wikipedia summary of the plot of The Lady in the Water. Good Lord ... 

 

post #97 of 105

Despite there being plenty of new emerging filmmakers with styles that are now bolder and far more interesting than Night's trademarks, he still does not seem to be struggling for work.  Although he's worked with lesser filmmakers before, Will Smith still wanted to collaborate with Night for his son's next vehicle.

 

After AIRBENDER, I'm pretty much done with Night.  He's not struggling for work, though, and likely will continue to make films with decent financial gains.

post #98 of 105

Read the last page of that EW article, it talks about casting

 

Quote:

 

Suddenly, the man who hears voices was hearing voices.

Maybe it's not Paul. Maybe it's Costner. Costner has warmth. Costner grabbed my elbow. Cleveland Heep has to have warmth. Paul hasn't even read the script. Does that mean anything? My God — is there someone I can talk to beside myself?

 

 

 

You can't make this stuff up! Tat author had to have known deep down he was damaging Night with this book

post #99 of 105
Quote:
Originally Posted by The Perfect Weapon View Post

 

Now, here's something that I remember REALLY pissed off people at the time: the 2004 mockumentary The Buried Secret of M. Night Shyamalan. It was on the then Sci-Fi Channel and I believe it was either 2 or 3 hours (!) long and it was a bunch of made-up bullshit that somehow was "guerrilla marketing" to promote The Village. I remember that people generally figured out it was crap even before it was shown and after the fact it was admitted it was a hoax. I imagine there was a decent amount of people (at least amongst the type of people who would frequent sites like this) who were turned off by the mockumentary.



 

Yeah, that documentary was a massive fuckup. From what I remember, people weren't pissed off so much because it was fake but because it felt more like a huge promotion of MNS as a 'persona' than anything else. A lot of it revolved around what a genius he was, along with some bullshit gambit about him maybe or maybe not actually having mystic powers, them being the reason why he was able to create these amazing, world-changing stories.

 

The thing is, MNS may have accrued a good amount of financial cache by this point and a good reputation as a genre director/writer, but he hadn't earned the cultural cache either he or his PR assumed. It had escalated from his name being put on the titles of his films to everyone having M. NIGHT SHYAMALAN, GENIUS STORY GOD rammed down their throat, whereupon it rapidly stuck in the public's collective craw. A dull, rambling mockumentary half-heartedly claiming MSN had magic powers as well didn't help, and the toxic word of mouth on The Village sealed the deal. It was basically promoting MNS as a persona, when he hadn't quite earned the cultural cache yet to actually be that figure, and people saw through its forced nature immediately. I'd argue that this, if any, was the point where public opinion started to turn against him.  

 

post #100 of 105
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Workyticket View Post



 

Yeah, that documentary was a massive fuckup. From what I remember, people weren't pissed off so much because it was fake but because it felt more like a huge promotion of MNS as a 'persona' than anything else. A lot of it revolved around what a genius he was, along with some bullshit gambit about him maybe or maybe not actually having mystic powers, them being the reason why he was able to create these amazing, world-changing stories.

 

The thing is, MNS may have accrued a good amount of financial cache by this point and a good reputation as a genre director/writer, but he hadn't earned the cultural cache either he or his PR assumed. It had escalated from his name being put on the titles of his films to everyone having M. NIGHT SHYAMALAN, GENIUS STORY GOD rammed down their throat, whereupon it rapidly stuck in the public's collective craw. A dull, rambling mockumentary half-heartedly claiming MSN had magic powers as well didn't help, and the toxic word of mouth on The Village sealed the deal. It was basically promoting MNS as a persona, when he hadn't quite earned the cultural cache yet to actually be that figure, and people saw through its forced nature immediately. I'd argue that this, if any, was the point where public opinion started to turn against him.  

 


I'd agree with that.

 

The problem is The Sixth Sense was lightning in a bottle.  And when the studio tries to hype successive films by the same director, they get people expecting more of that magic, rather than taking each film as a unique experience and selling it on its own terms.  The great thing about Spielberg is he tried so many different genres, so as to never get trapped into one-trick-pony land.  Shyamalan didn't and had the same amount of hype.  Bad formula.

New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: Movie Miscellany
CHUD.com Community › Forums › THE MAIN SEWER › Movie Miscellany › M. Night Shyamalan...no seriously